Originally posted by Xcathdra
Personally speaking I think Assange should be arrested and charged under the espionage act as well as conspiracy, and the bulk of the people think he
is a hero.

Thanks for the straight-forward answer but I disagree with your opinion(s). I cannot call him a hero yet but I hope he lives up to his promises and
if he does one can only imagine the excitement it will/would bring. Technically he is not a spy in the classic sense, unless you want to call him a
multiple agent since he has spied on many diplomatic cables mostly with lowely confidential stuff.

On a more serious note I think some reading material, of top secret or higher caliber, needs to get out to expose the global massive corruption in
regards to black projects of the military-industrial complex and the big pharma monopolies in medicine. I don't have to go into details because all
the long term CTs already know this, and if you don't know, chances are you will learn later anyway!

You can find the same info I posted from sites other than wired.com for starters.

Secondly I have explained many times what charges Assange should face, as well as links to websites that discuss potential charges from the US
Government as well as the Swedes for his sex charges.

For some strange reason you and several other choose to ignore those facts which contradict your viewpoints, including information from Assange
himself.

I always find it interesting that when people cannot accept facts, they resort to attacking the poster and sources of information, which seems to be
your standard response. I do apologize that I use facts and reference my information when posting and countering your arguments. If its too much for
you I can use smaller words.

Ive made my argument and supported it with facts which you continually ignore. Its going to be one of those I told you so moments. You guys should
really open your eyes and look at the larger picture.

Thats the part I have issues with. He makes these claims yet never follows through with them. His actions completely contradict the contradictions.

The most recent is the Swiss bank financial information. What the hell is the point of that? How is that even related to his stated goals? He is now
up to 4 insurance type files, and he keeps dangling that carrot. He says he will give mannings defense 50k, yet has failed to do so.

As far as the Top secrete or higher goes, I can agree with that somewhat. Im sure there is info that is classified that is only that way through
stupidity. However, as far as the rest goes, who are we to assume we should have access to it? People make assumptions without understanding the
ramifications.

The information that is Top secret or higher has to come from a source, whther it be human or electronic. Information that is Top secrete or higher is
generally that way for a reason. Not everyone in a foeriegn government / military has access to all information. If we obtain information on a
potential military invasion, and that classified info we received is released to the public, we just jeopradized the sources life, if not ended it
because only a few people would have access to it.

So we lose the source and the info = less reliable intelligence.

I mean honestly speaking why release personal banking info from Switzerland? Once again Assange has insinuated why in interviews in the last week, yet
turns around in the same interview and says he has not looked at the info yet.

I just find it hard to accept that Assange is acting in the best intrests of whomever with what he does. When he threatened to sue the Guardian
Newspaper he lost what was left of his miniscule moral argument.

Here is issue.

Assange gets all of his info from "sources". He then shops the info around the media outlets. The Guardian receives their info from Assange with the
stipulation its not released until a certain time. A person who worked for wikileaks also leaked all of the files to the Guardian. Because the
Guardian received it from a secondary source, their argument was they were no longer bound by the agreement with Assange. Assange then threatens to
sue the Guardian, citing he owned the information, and would suffer economic loss.

I will reiterate - Info is leaked to the Guardian newspaper, and Assange threatens to sue if they release the info.

A company played the exact same game Assange did, and Assange gets pissed.

The hypocrisy in Assanges actions... is staggering.

Which again goes back to my argument that he feels he is above the law, and that it should apply to everyone else except him. He did the same thing
when the information about the rape case was released, demanding an investigation.

Hmmm. So Julian Assange releases vital information that endangers foreign operatives and possibly causes the death of people who help the US and he
wants to have Palin and Huckabee charged. This makes total sense. Deflect attention much?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Secondly I have explained many times what charges Assange should face, as well as links to websites that discuss potential
charges from the US Government as well as the Swedes for his sex charges. For some strange reason you and several other choose to ignore those
facts which contradict your viewpoints, including information from Assange himself.

I applaud your phrasing because it’s actually very honest.

For instance, “charges Assange should face.” Should... according to you. This is your opinion. “Potential charges.”
That’s all they are. Assange hasn’t even been charged by the US government, and he hasn’t been convicted of anything, in Sweden or in the United
States

So basically, you declare your opinion of what should happen to Assange to be fact, declare him to be guilty of all potential
charges, and everyone of us that disagree with you is ignoring facts and are “blind loyalists” of Assange. How presumptuous.

My viewpoint, as I’ve explained, is that no private citizen is guilty of
espionage by passively receiving and freely and publicly publishing classified information of the sort that Wikileaks has. This is my viewpoint.
Assange is only relevant to my viewpoint in that he is being accused of something which I do not believe to be a crime.

Oh, and I’m still waiting on your opinion on why Assange should be charged with espionage, and Dana Priest, The Washington Post, Bob Woodward and
The New York Times shouldn’t.

On a more serious note I think some reading material, of top secret or higher caliber, needs to get out to expose the global massive corruption in
regards to black projects of the military-industrial complex and the big pharma monopolies in medicine.

I will reiterate - Info is leaked to the Guardian newspaper, and Assange threatens to sue if they release the info. A company played the exact same
game Assange did, and Assange gets pissed. The hypocrisy in Assanges actions... is staggering.

He is playing the media for maximum affect and exposure.. That is not hyprocrisy that is playing the game..

Originally posted by aptness
For instance, “charges Assange should face.” Should... according to you. This is your opinion. “Potential charges.” That’s all they are.
Assange hasn’t even been charged by the US government, and he hasn’t been convicted of anything, in Sweden or in the United States.

I have always stated what laws he possibly violated, and I have stated why I think he should be charged. My opinions and thoughts are just that, and
at no point did I pass it off as a matter of fact that he would be charged. We have had this argument now in several threads on the same topic, any
particular reason you keep trying to drag it back up?

The US investigation is ongoing, so we shall see what if anything comes from it.

Originally posted by aptness
My viewpoint, as I’ve explained, is that no private citizen is guilty of
espionage by passively receiving and freely and publicly publishing classified information of the sort that Wikileaks has. This is my viewpoint.
Assange is only relevant to my viewpoint in that he is being accused of something which I do not believe to be a crime.

And you would be incorrect in that statement. Again, for the 5 millionth time read up on the Pentagon Papers. The Supreme Court held that the
Governments arguemnt, based solely on embarrasment, did not qualify under prior restraint. The Supreme court did not grant any type of immunity
to the press. The 2 reporters invovled in those publishings were charged and it went to court. The PA screwed up part of his case, resulting in the
charges being dropped.

New York Times V. US is the case. Feel free to read it.

Originally posted by aptness
Oh, and I’m still waiting on your opinion on why Assange should be charged with espionage, and Dana Priest, The Washington Post, Bob Woodward and
The New York Times shouldn’t.

There is a difference in the comparison you are trying to make with this question. Assange and wikileaks have received classified information under
the guise of whistleblowing. The problem is they stepped outside that box by releasing other information that was not evidence of criminal wrongdoing.
The info released can be used by our enemies and will have (already has) adverse fallout from it.

The 2 MIT students who assisted manning with the encryption software are under investigation, and its not clear if they were a source for wikileaks,
or if they were employed by wikileaks. If they were employed, then wikileaks cannot make the argument they just received the info because they
actively assisted in its theft and transfer by providing the encrpytion software.

Taking one step back from the espionage charge, you still have possession and distribution of classified material, which is a Felony. The Supreme
Court ruling was clear on that point in that it did not grant immunity to the media (which people keep stating media has immunity) that would allow
them to print the information and not be charged for it.

You will find a lot of media personalities have gone to jail for contempt of court for refusing to identify their sources. I think any papers who
printed the classified info should be held accountible for it, but again thats me (and Ihave stated this many times as well in other posts).

The term is Journalistic Integrity, and it is something that Assange does not have.

Now, questions for you. Ive noticed that in almost all arguments we have, you shift the conversation back to my personal dislike of Assange while
ignoring the info and facrs present.

Assange threatened to sue the Guardian because a source leaked all the wiki documents to them, and the Guiardian wanted to publish them. Assange
threatened to sue basing his argument on Financial grounds and that he also owned the leaked information.

How can you ignore such a blatant example of what this guy is all about?

Why is it ok for Assange to leak info, yet he gets pissed when the swedish lawsuit info was leaked?

Explain to me why swedish bank accounts are anyones business other than the owners of the accounts?

Explain to me why Assange has 4 insurance files now, and continually lies about the release of said info?

Assuming you took the time to read all available evidence, how can you continue to defend a person whose stated goals change from interview to
interview?

How can you defend a person who knowingly manipulates the media with his lawyer by invoking gitmo, death sentence, treason? Its such a blatant lie and
is intended to play off peoples emotions and political views.

What purpose does releasing all this information do aside from making Assange rich?

I am sure you would be pissed if I ran your information throught the system and posted your SSN / DL / Address / Phone Numbers / Place of Employment /
Your banking information / House information / family information.

Without a full understanding of the information at hand that places things into context, all Assange has is speculation based on his contradictory
moral / ethical beliefs.

Whats sad is people demand the Federal Government be held accountible, while not raising one finger to actually hold them accountible?

and finally why do people who support wikileaks think they are entitled to classified information? What does it matter to you and your daily life if
an Ambassador thinks the French Preisdent is a pompous ass? For people who invoke the Constitution all the time in this area I will remind you of
this:

* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)
* - The President is the Chief Diplomat
* - Congress approves treaties signed between countries
* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)
* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)

oh, and this
* - The US is a Representative Republic (constitutional)

You and every other American has access to classified information through the person you sent to Washington to represent your itnrests.

Most of the arguments I see ignore the fact that actions people find "criminal" arent always criminal and fall within the authority of the President
or Congress as spelled out in the Constitution. Can you show me where in the Constitution, Declaration of Independence etc where it states no
information will be withheld from the people?

People do not have an adequate understading of the problems wikileaks is causing

No im not talking about that. I am talking about Assanges arguments that he owns the leaked information and was willing to sue a company because
someone else also leaked the info to them.

In other words, according to Assange, its ok for him to publish leaked information, but not others. By asking for donations he is essentially
charging people for this information, and this is backed up by his constant request for donations.

To me there are 2 seperate issues - Wikileaks and Assange / US Government and certain actions they take.

Ive stated in other posts that the Government should be held responsible. The manner in which Assange releases that info undercuts any accountiability
he is supposedly pushing.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
My opinions and thoughts are just that, and at no point did I pass it off as a matter of fact that he would be charged.

Well that helps to clear things up. For a moment there it seemed like you were accusing people who don’t agree with your opinion of what should
happen to Assange — or as you called it “the facts” — as being ignorant of the facts and blind followers of Assange.

The Supreme Court held that the Governments arguemnt, based solely on embarrasment, did not qualify under prior restraint.

I’m glad you recognize your side of the argument has a heavy burden to meet.

New York Times V. US is the case. Feel free to read it.

Prior restraint? New York Times v. US? Xcathdra we’re not dealing with a prior restraint case. The US didn’t file a restraining order to stop the
documents from being published by any media outlet, as far as I’m aware. And in any event, wasn’t the decision of the case 6-3 in favor of the New
York Times, and other media outlets, to publish the Pentagon papers?

There is a difference in the comparison you are trying to make with this question. Assange and wikileaks have received classified information
under the guise of whistleblowing. The problem is they stepped outside that box by releasing other information that was not evidence of criminal
wrongdoing.

Bob Woodward published a book about inner workings of the Obama administration, the discussions about tactics and methods to use in the wars by said
administration officials, and published the codenames of some secret programs. This wasn’t with the purpose of informing the public about criminal
wrongdoing.

Dana Priest and The Washington Times published Top Secret America, a series of articles detailing the booming of the post-9/11 security apparatus of
the United States. In it they published the names and locations of facilities where US agencies and contractors do top secret work, what kind of work
they do and in many cases, how much the contractors were paid for that work. And among other things, published the number of people in the US
currently with top secret clearances. This wasn’t done with the purpose of informing the public about criminal wrongdoing either.

Your distinction based on the claim that it is permissible to publish the information if it’s done with the purposes of whistleblowing
doesn’t apply to the examples I asked you to comment on then. But that’s not really surprising since you apparently believe these journalists and
their respective newspapers to be criminals:

I think any papers who printed the classified info should be held accountible for it, but again thats me (and Ihave stated this many times as
well in other posts).

Let me ask you a question then: if AboveTopSecret.com hosts the cablegate documents is it too breaking the law? If a member quotes a classified cable
on ATS, is AboveTopSecret liable? Is the member liable? Is the other member who reads it and, not having authorization to access the document, liable
for not ‘returning’ the documents, as per the language of the espionage act?

Now, questions for you. Ive noticed that in almost all arguments we have, you shift the conversation back to my personal dislike of Assange
while ignoring the info and facrs present.

Because that’s what you’ve been doing. I don’t find Assange to be a particularly likable person, but I do not need to like anyone for me to
defend what I believe is their fundamental rights.

People do not have an adequate understading of the problems wikileaks is causing

That’s the argument the government made under your beloved New York Times v. United States. How did that turn out for the government again?

Originally posted by aptness
Well that helps to clear things up. For a moment there it seemed like you were accusing people who don’t agree with your opinion of what should
happen to Assange — or as you called it “the facts” — as being ignorant of the facts and blind followers of Assange.

I was not going after any one person at all. When I use the term Facts, it is what it is. Its a fact that classified information was leaked to
wikileaks. Its a fact that wikileaks released those documents to the world. Its a fact Assange is in charge of wikileaks and its a fact by his own
admission that he claims the files belong to him and its a fact that he threatened to sue the gaurdian because...... they received leaked files.

This is where I get the hypocrisy part from him, as well as the info from the swedish case that was leaked. He is all about leaking everyone else
information, but by God no one better leak his info.

Originally posted by aptness
I’m glad you recognize your side of the argument has a heavy burden to meet.

My position has never changed, and has always been about the Government needing to meet their burden to prove they have probable cause that a crime
was committed, how it was committed, by whom, where and why.

Originally posted by aptness
Prior restraint? New York Times v. US? Xcathdra we’re not dealing with a prior restraint case. The US didn’t file a restraining order to stop the
documents from being published by any media outlet, as far as I’m aware. And in any event, wasn’t the decision of the case 6-3 in favor of the New
York Times, and other media outlets, to publish the Pentagon papers?

It has everything to do with wikileaks because everyone claims they are immune from prosecution because they are "media".

During the Vietnam war a classfied report was leaked to media outlets that highlighted the Governments bungeling of the war. The Nixon administration
attempted to stop the paper from printing that report. When the paper said it was going forward, it went to the courts. The US Supreme Court said
prior restraint cannot be applied in a case where the only reason is embarrasment. It can be applied if other factors exist. The reason the Government
didnt file for it is because wikileaks is not based in the US and as such is not subjected to that particular law because of the way it is worded. The
other legal argument is it does not apply because they are not a media outlet, so the law wouldnt apply anyways to them..

In that same ruling, the Supreme Court never granted immunity from prosecution to media outlets who published classified info. The part you are
referring to, NYT winning the case, was based on the prior restraint argument, and only that argument (embarrasment). The 2 reporters were charged for
publishing the info, and as I said the PA screwed up part of his case which resulted in the charges being dismissed.

Times v. United States is generally considered a victory for an extensive reading of the First Amendment, but as the Supreme Court ruled on
whether the government had made a successful case for prior restraint, its decision did not void the Espionage Act or give the press
unlimited freedom to publish classified documents. Ellsberg and Russo were not acquitted of violating the Espionage Act; they were freed due to a
mistrial from irregularities in the government's case.[3]

Originally posted by aptness
Dana Priest and The Washington Times published Top Secret America, a series of articles detailing the booming of the post-9/11 security apparatus of
the United States. In it they published the names and locations of facilities where US agencies and contractors do top secret work, what kind of work
they do and in many cases, how much the contractors were paid for that work. And among other things, published the number of people in the US
currently with top secret clearances. This wasn’t done with the purpose of informing the public about criminal wrongdoing either.

An online database at TopSecretAmerica.com, as well as the articles to be published, were made available to government officials several months
prior to the publications of the report. Each data point at the website was substantiated by at least two public records. The government was
requested to advise of any specific concerns, but at that time, none were offered.[2]

At the bottom of that page it talks about some of the issues administraition officals had with the book. Also, the book is not the actual classified
reports. Big difference.

Originally posted by aptness
Your distinction based on the claim that it is permissible to publish the information if it’s done with the purposes of whistleblowing
doesn’t apply to the examples I asked you to comment on then. But that’s not really surprising since you apparently believe these journalists and
their respective newspapers to be criminals:

Its called responsible journalism, and in case you did not notice there were several papers who opted not to release certain information because they
felt it contained to specific information. The Guardian on the otherhand will publish whatever.

I am a huge supporter of the media. They mind the peoples business when dealing with the Government. However, there are some areas that are classified
for a reason. I dont know how to get you to understand how these documents work. If the FBI, CIA and NSA all have information on one topic, they all
3 do reports. A complete report will be done that refrences bits from all 3 sources so each agnecy can protect their sources.

If that report is leaked, it only paints a partial picture, because the remaining information resides with the respective agencies. Compartmentalized
information is the term, along with need to know. It would be like the media getting a hold of a booking sheet that shows the person was booked in on
a 24 hour hold for killing a person. Without the PC statment to put it into context, people draw a conclusion, which is usually incorrect. In this
case the person defended themselves, but the investigation still needs to be done to verify that fact.

Originally posted by aptness
Let me ask you a question then: if AboveTopSecret.com hosts the cablegate documents is it too breaking the law? If a member quotes a classified cable
on ATS, is AboveTopSecret liable? Is the member liable? Is the other member who reads it and, not having authorization to access the document, liable
for not ‘returning’ the documents, as per the language of the espionage act?

Based on your scenario Yes, they could be held liable since they know the information was illegally obtained and released. Placing it on this site,
which is not a media outlet, for the sole purpose of distribution would be against the law. Does that mean the Government will press charges? Good
question?

Just because they have not pressed charges, does not mean they cant. Espionage act aside, it still falls under Federal Law when dealing with the
possession and distribution of classified information. Assuming abovetopsecret.com is based in the United States, the Government could make the
argument for prior restraint.

Originally posted by aptness
Because that’s what you’ve been doing. I don’t find Assange to be a particularly likable person, but I do not need to like anyone for me to
defend what I believe is their fundamental rights.

Fundamental right to what? and why does assanges "fundamental rights" trump mine, or yours, or the military personell? He is not even a US citizen,
so I am not sure what fundamental rights you are referring to. Where does an Austrailian get the gall to play fancy free off our National security?

As I said, not all the documents he released show criminal wrongdoing, so how is he not in violation of the espionage act or in violation of
possessing classified information?

Originally posted by aptness
That’s the argument the government made under your beloved New York Times v. United States. How did that turn out for the government again?

Uhm, no. Please read the case. The Government attempted to use prior restraint based on embarassment. Had the Government made an argument that the
info could be potentially damaging to military operations (which they did not) there is a good chance the Government would of won since it would meet
the burden set forth on using prior restraint.

The argument people are making is Manning is a whistleblower. Here is the problem:

Manning did not follow proper prcedure to qualify as a whistle blower. By extension, since his actions were not legal in the first place, any attempt
to argue a defense is going to be a mute point. Any outlet that received those documents and published them could theoretically face charges, but we
know it wont happen for obvious reasons.

Assange and wikileaks on the other hand, since they have identified themselves as "owning" the information as well as identified themselves as the
distriution point of that info, have violated Federal Law. His nationality is going to be irrelevant since he is illegally in possession of US
government property, and charging and extradition would be allowed under treaties we have. He also is not in compliance of the whistleblower statutes
either so I am not entirely sure, if charged, what argument he is going to make. Especially since the US Government has issued repeated cease and
desist orders which he ignored.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
This is where I get the hypocrisy part from him

I can understand why this matters to you, but whether Assange is an hypocrite or not is completely inconsequential to the question of he is breaking
any laws by publishing the information given to him. And this, exclusively, is why I’m interested and participate in this discussion.

For someone who accuses others of being Assange followers you do focus a lot on what Assange personally does or how he acts.

It has everything to do with wikileaks because everyone claims they are immune from prosecution because they are "media".

I never said there was an absolute immunity. And I don’t say Wikileaks is immune (in this instance) because they are ‘media.’ It is my position
that quite frankly it doesn’t even matter — media or private citizens, according to the Constitution have an equal footing when it comes to
freedom of speech.

In fact, it could be argued that journalists or members of the media have more restrictions than private citizens when it comes to publishing
information, since there are laws and ethics covering journalists specifically.

Your answer is here:

An online database at TopSecretAmerica.com, as well as the articles to be published, were made available to government officials several months
prior to the publications of the report. Each data point at the website was substantiated by at least two public records. The government was
requested to advise of any specific concerns, but at that time, none were offered.[2]

Wikileaks willingly offered to show the material to US authorities and help them redact sensitive information. The US authorities denied to help. Not
Wikileaks’ problem.

Also, the book is not the actual classified reports. Big difference.

Not according to the language in the espionage act. But wait, we aren’t going by a strict interpretation of the language anymore?

Based on your scenario Yes, they could be held liable since they know the information was illegally obtained and released. Placing it on this
site, which is not a media outlet, for the sole purpose of distribution would be against the law. Does that mean the Government will press charges?
Good question?

My scenario? Based on my scenario neither ATS nor, obviously, the members are liable for it.

Just because they have not pressed charges, does not mean they cant. Espionage act aside, it still falls under Federal Law when dealing with
the possession and distribution of classified information. Assuming abovetopsecret.com is based in the United States, the Government could make the
argument for prior restraint.

ATS is based in Arizona. Hey, if you feel so strongly about this why not advocate ATS and the members that quoted the cables, to be held accountable?
I certainly would love see you make the case here

Originally posted by aptness
Fundamental right to what? and why does assanges "fundamental rights" trump mine, or yours, or the military personell? He is not even a US citizen,
so I am not sure what fundamental rights you are referring to. Where does an Austrailian get the gall to play fancy free off our National
security?

Are you saying you owe more allegiance to the Chinese government now than you would if you were Chinese? Because it’s exactly the same
comparison.

The argument people are making is Manning is a whistleblower.

Well, maybe ‘people’ are, but I’m not. In fact, and I’ve stated as much, if Manning is the source then he is guilty. Wikileaks and Assange, on
the other hand, is a completely question and I don’t find your — and others’ — argument convincing.

Originally posted by aptness
I can understand why this matters to you, but whether Assange is an hypocrite or not is completely inconsequential to the question of he is breaking
any laws by publishing the information given to him. And this, exclusively, is why I’m interested and participate in this discussion.

It does matter since it goes to frame of mind. Its revealing in terms of his thought process, which is coming across as he is untouchable and everyone
else is subordinate to him. When dealing with a person who thinks they are above the law is problematic, as he likes to point out in regards to our
Presidency.

It shows the possibility of an underlying psychiatric issue. No I am not saying he is crazy or anything like that, but his sense of moral right and
wrong is unique in terms that when he commits the same infraction he accuses others of, its not important.

Originally posted by aptness
For someone who accuses others of being Assange followers you do focus a lot on what Assange personally does or how he acts.

In this case, as I have stated before, Assange is not reporting the news, he is making the news. His personal action spill into wikileaks and his
actions. There is no seperation between Julian Assange, Private individual and Julian Assange, CEO of wikileaks. Since he makes no distinction its
imperative to understand his personal habbits as it reflects in his business habits.

Originally posted by aptness
I never said there was an absolute immunity. And I don’t say Wikileaks is immune (in this instance) because they are ‘media.’ It is my position
that quite frankly it doesn’t even matter — media or private citizens, according to the Constitution have an equal footing when it comes to
freedom of speech.

Except when your actions / words places another person in apprehension. You still cannot walk into a movie theatre and yell fire. The Constitution
also places the powers of diplomacy, treaties and day to day government operations in the hands of the PResident and Congress, who act on behalf of
the people. So again, even with the 1st amendment argument, you are still not entitled to calssified information.

Originally posted by aptness
In fact, it could be argued that journalists or members of the media have more restrictions than private citizens when it comes to publishing
information, since there are laws and ethics covering journalists specifically.

The perception of more restrictions comes from journalistic integrity and ethics in reporting. Any information they report that is wrong, and they
know its wrong, can cost them the trust oif the public, as well as slander / lible lawsuits. For example we can pick any moment in US history and we
will find where an administration lied or omitted info that cost them.

Originally posted by aptness
Wikileaks willingly offered to show the material to US authorities and help them redact sensitive information. The US authorities denied to help. Not
Wikileaks’ problem.

Wikileaks actually demanded that the US Government supply them with people, who would be paid by the US Government, to assist in screening documents
in order to redact information. Nothing like committing a crime and demanding the person you robbed to help you load their items in your truck.

There is a huge difference between wikileaks and Woodwards book. Woodward placed the information in an area the FEderal Government could access and
raise their objections. Chances are if the objections were reasonable, then woodward would of not placed the info, or masked the info before going to
publish.

Assange on the other hand was indifferent. He wanted help redacting documents, but he still planned on releasing all of them regardless of Government
objections.

Originally posted by aptness
Not according to the language in the espionage act. But wait, we aren’t going by a strict interpretation of the language anymore?

See my answer above - The law says as a private person you cannot kill another human. The law also says that as a Police Officer, I can give you
verbal commands, up to and including ordering you to use deadly force if the order is legal. Both laws are pretty direct in their wording and how the
laws are applied.

Originally posted by aptness
My scenario? Based on my scenario neither ATS nor, obviously, the members are liable for it.

Then you run the risk of being charged with possession of classified information. As we have argued before, ignorance of the law is no excuse. In the
scenario you gave, the knowledge is present that the information was illegally obtained and distributed and would most likely not allow for an
affirmative defense if charged.

What do you think would happen if your next door neighbor is writing a book, and his son makes a copy of it and sneaks it to you. You decide to go
ahead and publish the book and claim the info contained in it as yours.

Its no different that what wikileaks and Assange have done.

Originally posted by aptness
ATS is based in Arizona. Hey, if you feel so strongly about this why not advocate ATS and the members that quoted the cables, to be held accountable?
I certainly would love see you make the case here

I see someone has a mouth full of wise ass tonight

Well for starters I am not empowered to enforce Federal Law. I will leave that to the DOJ and their alphabet arms. Secondly the government already
monitors this site for the obvious reasons and they dont need my help in doing so.

Contrary to how people portray my views at times, I am not a Government cheerleader in any sense of the imagination. I think the goal of holding
Government accountible for its actions is a noble goal, since it is what the founders intended. That being said there are ways to hold them
accountible, and the manner Assange chose is not even in the ballpark. The goal behind accountibility is change in behavior. All Assange has managed
to do is bury the story under drama.

Originally posted by aptness
Are you saying you owe more allegiance to the Chinese government now than you would if you were Chinese? Because it’s exactly the same
comparison.

I am saying that as a US citizen, I take exception to the fact an Austrailian is jeopradizing US National Security because he has an ego he needs
stroked. Next time you read one of his interviews, or watch it on tv, pay close attention to the manner in which he answers questions. You will find
that when he is confronted with a question about his potential wrong doing, its delfected, it becomes someone else's problem.

The information you have is classified - The info was leaked to us, not my problem
The info you are posting jeopradizes people lives - Our releases do not put anyone in danger
There are potential charges against you in Sweden for sex crimes - They wanted it / they are CIA operatives / they are doing it on purpose / they
agreed to it.
Palin and huckabee should be charged with inciting whatever - My comments and release of classified information placed no one in danger
You are facing sex charges in sweden - Its the US Government trying to get revenge on me.

He accuses the US of making false accusations, yet he has no issues when he lies. If Assange has proof that the US is behind the trumped up charges,
then release that info and put the whole thing to rest. I cant see him doing that though because it would cut into his media attention.

Originally posted by aptness
Well, maybe ‘people’ are, but I’m not. In fact, and I’ve stated as much, if Manning is the source then he is guilty. Wikileaks and Assange, on
the other hand, is a completely question and I don’t find your — and others’ — argument convincing.

Fair enough.. Let me ask you this though. Assange came up out of nowhere with wikileaks back in 2007. What makes you think he is trustworthy? What
makes you think the documents he is releasing are in fact real, and not edited / changed / tweaked/ etc? He has comiited crimes in the past, as he
accuses the US Government of doing, so what makes him different?

If Assange announced tomorrow their is life on the moon of kurnasastan, it will be believed without question, just as people have done with his
accusation on Bank of America, and Rupert Murdoch.

There are people out there who truely want the info to make changes. The bulk of the people, in my opinion, could care less about change . They are
more intrested in the information they are not suppose to have. So their arguments are empty and self serving in terms they could care less about
change and care more about "being in the know".

Its no different than media making their customary if you have kids in the room they should look away as our next segment contains graphic material.
At that moment in time, in every household with kids and that channel, you can feel the earth shift as millions of kids scramble to watch the
segment.

"Those who know, don't talk - those who talk don't know"

Assange is stupid but hes not. Assange knows full well that anything he posts cannot be challeneed by the US Government, because they will have to
explain why Assanges info is wrong, which will continue to do damage because they will have to release more info to counter any claims. Its almost
like the movie Valkerye, except in this case he is attempting to use the Federal Government to make his argument for him.

Originally posted by aptness
But I don’t have to, this is a discussion forum after all.

I guess.. The only thing we are missing is the soap opera lead in and end credit music.

Edit: As an afterthought I am curious how Assange would react if the 2000 plus sites who have all the info released them over Assanges objections.
Mass lawsuit, or a tempter tantrum that would rival a 2 year olds?

Also if other sites did that, ignored Assanges threats of a lawsuit, would people still continue to support assange and wikileaks, or would they
support the new site that gave them the info assange held over their head?

Originally posted by Xcathdra
What do you think would happen if your next door neighbor is writing a book, and his son makes a copy of it and sneaks it to you. You decide to go
ahead and publish the book and claim the info contained in it as yours.
Its no different that what wikileaks and Assange have done.

The difference being that when Wikileaks published the information they published it implicit understanding that the information contained was the US
government’s, not Wikileaks’ or Assange’s. And I don’t have to pay Wikileaks to access the information.

Not to mention that in your hypothetical we are dealing with private citizens exclusively, there is no government information or interaction. And,
also, in your hypothetical we’d be dealing with a civil case not a criminal one, assuming, as is the case in your hypothetical, that the guy
published the information given to him by a third party and didn’t stole it himself.

I am saying that as a US citizen, I take exception to the fact an Austrailian is jeopradizing US National Security because he has an ego he
needs stroked. Next time you read one of his interviews, or watch it on tv, pay close attention to the manner in which he answers questions. You will
find that when he is confronted with a question about his potential wrong doing, its delfected, it becomes someone else's problem.

I understand your feelings, but because you “take exception” doesn’t make Assange or Wikileaks’ actions criminal. That’s what we’re
talking here. At least that’s the focus of my comments.

Fair enough.. Let me ask you this though. Assange came up out of nowhere with wikileaks back in 2007. What makes you think he is trustworthy?
What makes you think the documents he is releasing are in fact real, and not edited / changed / tweaked/ etc?

I can’t know for sure. Neither of us can. So I have to assess it by what happens. Has anyone demonstrated the information Wikileaks posted was fake
or altered? Has anyone sued Wikileaks for posting false information even?

If Assange announced tomorrow their is life on the moon of kurnasastan, it will be believed without question, just as people have done with his
accusation on Bank of America, and Rupert Murdoch.

I understand what you are saying and your concern, but how is that different than what we have to do when the government publishes or shows us
information? We have to determine it by ourselves, or, hopefully, through the work of investigative journalists, for example.

So in regards to that I guess my earlier point still stands. Has anyone demonstrated anything Wikileaks has posted to have been faked or altered by
Wikileaks? I admit that I haven’t been up to date on that front, but as far as I’m aware the answer is no.

Edit: As an afterthought I am curious how Assange would react if the 2000 plus sites who have all the info released them over Assanges
objections. Mass lawsuit, or a tempter tantrum that would rival a 2 year olds?

Honestly I couldn’t care less, but if he attempted something like that, he would get no sympathy from me, nor do I think his claims had any merit.

Originally posted by aptness
The difference being that when Wikileaks published the information they published it implicit understanding that the information contained was the US
government’s, not Wikileaks’ or Assange’s. And I don’t have to pay Wikileaks to access the information.

That contradicts Assanges statement when he threatened to sue the Guardian. He specifically cited that the info was his and he would be financialy
hurt if the info were released in the manner the gaurdian wanted. So which is it?

[Assange] had become the victim of his own methods: someone at WikiLeaks, where there was no shortage of disgruntled volunteers, had leaked the
last big segment of the documents, and they ended up at The Guardian in such a way that the paper was released from its previous agreement with
Assange—that The Guardian would publish its stories only when Assange gave his permission. Enraged that he had lost control, Assange unleashed his
threat, arguing that he owned the information and had a financial interest in how and when it was released

Originally posted by aptness
Not to mention that in your hypothetical we are dealing with private citizens exclusively, there is no government information or interaction. And,
also, in your hypothetical we’d be dealing with a civil case not a criminal one, assuming, as is the case in your hypothetical, that the guy
published the information given to him by a third party and didn’t stole it himself.

The setup is the same. An item is stolen and given to someone else. Its not a civil case as you suggest, it would be criminal, since the item was
stolen by a person who did not own the item, and it would be receiveing stolen property by the person who accepoted it.

Originally posted by aptness
I understand your feelings, but because you “take exception” doesn’t make Assange or Wikileaks’ actions criminal. That’s what we’re
talking here. At least that’s the focus of my comments.

And its what I have been arguing, that his actions are criminal. If you owned a house outright, and you live in the middle of BFE, you can torch your
house and burn it to the ground. If a person other than the owner did that, it would be arson.

Originally posted by aptness
I can’t know for sure. Neither of us can. So I have to assess it by what happens. Has anyone demonstrated the information Wikileaks posted was fake
or altered? Has anyone sued Wikileaks for posting false information even?

No idea if anyone has filed a suit against him, and I dont think there is standing unless its the US Government. Unless a private individual can prove
that the release of the documents by assange contrinuted directly to any damage that might have occured.

Your answer is concerning. Blind loyalty to a person no one really knows or understands is dangerous. Its one thing to take what he has and says and
look into it. I am referring to those people who have so much hatred towards the Government, that they dont challenge or research anything Assange
says or does, they jsut accept it as gospel.

Originally posted by aptness
I understand what you are saying and your concern, but how is that different than what we have to do when the government publishes or shows us
information? We have to determine it by ourselves, or, hopefully, through the work of investigative journalists, for example.

Which no one is doing with the leaked information. They are taking it at face value. Also, I voted and participated in my Government, and if they lie,
we have recourse to vote them out. Assange does not have any of that, and all things being equal, the Devil you know beats the dEvil you dont.

Originally posted by aptness
So in regards to that I guess my earlier point still stands. Has anyone demonstrated anything Wikileaks has posted to have been faked or altered by
Wikileaks? I admit that I haven’t been up to date on that front, but as far as I’m aware the answer is no.

This right here is the bulk of my argument. The only way we can confirm that wikileaks is publishing authentic, accurate unmolested documents is if
the Government confirms the releases are accurate, and that is not going to happen. People are placing blind trust into a person who has alterior
motives, namely money as we are finding out, which is no different that what Assange accuses the Government of doing.

Personally speaking if I am going to get screwed over, I prefer it be by my Government, where I have some legal recourse, and not some snotty twit
from Austrailia who demands people be held acountible for their actions, while doing the complete opposite himself.

Originally posted by aptness
Honestly I couldn’t care less, but if he attempted something like that, he would get no sympathy from me, nor do I think his claims had any merit.

He has already done it though... Read the article I linked at the top of the page about his threatened lawsuit.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
Let me ask you a question then: if AboveTopSecret.com hosts the cablegate documents is it too breaking the law? If a member quotes a classified cable
on ATS, is AboveTopSecret liable? Is the member liable? Is the other member who reads it and, not having authorization to access the document, liable
for not ‘returning’ the documents, as per the language of the espionage act?

Based on your scenario Yes, they could be held liable since they know the information was illegally obtained and released. Placing it on this site,
which is not a media outlet, for the sole purpose of distribution would be against the law. Does that mean the Government will press charges? Good
question?

Just because they have not pressed charges, does not mean they cant. Espionage act aside, it still falls under Federal Law when dealing with the
possession and distribution of classified information. Assuming abovetopsecret.com is based in the United States, the Government could make the
argument for prior restraint.

Thats a gray area! It has been said that only theft of classified material is criminal, in other words how and why that material left the governments
possession and fell to the general public. To get a job that involves dealing with classified material means you must sign a non-disclosure agreement
and if you violate the terms&conditions it is grounds for job dismisal, fines, jail and some say even death.

Once the material has been made public, it is silly to assume that the government will go after anyone else other than the initial theif(s).

Originally posted by Xcathdra
As I said, not all the documents he released show criminal wrongdoing, so how is he not in violation of the espionage act or in violation of
possessing classified information?

He might be in violation of possessing classified information but they cannot level espionage act charges against him because he did not steal the
documents himself, rather they were provided to him by others. You have to actually try to steal material to be guilty of espionage!

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by aptness

That’s the argument the government made under your beloved New York Times v. United States. How did that turn out for the government again?

Uhm, no. Please read the case. The Government attempted to use prior restraint based on embarassment. Had the Government made an argument that the
info could be potentially damaging to military operations (which they did not) there is a good chance the Government would of won since it would meet
the burden set forth on using prior restraint.

The argument people are making is Manning is a whistleblower. Here is the problem:

Manning did not follow proper prcedure to qualify as a whistle blower. By extension, since his actions were not legal in the first place, any attempt
to argue a defense is going to be a mute point. Any outlet that received those documents and published them could theoretically face charges, but we
know it wont happen for obvious reasons.

Those that provided the material to wiki-leaks and provided they worked for the government and provided they had signed non-disclosure agreements
makes them liable for charges. I think its pretty clear cut and no I don't feel like reading the national security act of 1947 for details...because
we all know governments are a joke!

Some information needs to get out but at the same time sources should be protected. I don't want to see innocent people getting injured and/or killed
for lowely confidential stuff which everyone and their dog already knows about anyway.

Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder, has circulated across the internet an encrypted “poison pill” cache of uncensored documents suspected
to include files on BP and Guantanamo Bay.

One of the files identified this weekend by The Sunday Times — called the “insurance” file — has been downloaded from the WikiLeaks website by
tens of thousands of supporters, from America to Australia.

Assange warns that any government that tries to curtail his activities risks triggering a new deluge of state and commercial secrets.

Julian Assange apparently has a back-up plan if WikiLeaks gets taken down.

The secretive Australian who has been in hiding to avoid rape charges in Sweden, as well as any shadowy assassins who may want to rub him out, had a
massive "doomsday file" posted online which may contain all of the leaked documents in unredacted form.

The info is not hard to find, and is all there in Assanges own words. People really should pay more attention to what he is doing and what he says.
You will see he continually contradicts himself and his goals.

I have obviously not made myself clear enough. You stated that JA/Wikileaks have lied about a schedule for releasing information they claim to
have.
For this to be true, there must be a promise to release a specific piece of info by a specific date which is not fulfilled.
Nothing in your post demonstrates this as so, unless I am missing something.
It appears that you have become lost in your own bias and cannot make distinctions between facts and your story about those facts.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.